Summary of Legal Opinion (Anonymised)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant (age 53) was sentenced on 13 February 2025 in The Court to a total of 42 months' imprisonment for two offences of theft, one offence of possession of heroin, two separate breaches of a 10‑year Criminal Behaviour Order ("CBO") and activation of part of an earlier suspended sentence. The Appellant appealed with leave of the Single Judge.

The facts as set out in the opinion are:

• The Appellant is a heroin addict with a very extensive criminal record (103 previous convictions for 233 offences, including many theft and breach‑type offences).
• The Appellant funded his addiction by stealing expensive clothes from shops in The City. On 10 April 2024 he was issued with a 10‑year CBO which, among other conditions, prohibited him from entering The City area that had been the focus of the offending.
• On 25 October 2024 the Appellant stole six cashmere jumpers from Company A in The City (value £900) — first theft count.
• On 28 November 2024 the Appellant was given a suspended sentence of 12 weeks' imprisonment (operational period 18 months) for other thefts; subsequent offences activated that suspended sentence.
• On 18 December 2024 the Appellant stole six jackets from Company B in The City (value £2,000) — second theft count.
• On 30 December 2024 the Appellant was observed entering a transport station in The City, in breach of the CBO — first breach count.
• On 15 January 2025 the Appellant was seen in The City and was found to have a small quantity of heroin; this was recorded as a second breach of the CBO and a possession offence.
• At the sentencing hearing the judge imposed two consecutive 5‑month terms for the thefts (10 months), two consecutive 15‑month terms for the CBO breaches (30 months), a 3‑month concurrent term for heroin possession, and activated a 2‑month term from the suspended sentence, producing an overall term of 42 months.

The appellate court reviewed the sentencing exercise and concluded that the sentencing hearing was fundamentally flawed and that the overall sentence could not stand. The appeal court re‑characterised the offences under the applicable Sentencing Guidelines and re‑calculated the appropriate sentences within the constraint that the appellate court could not impose an overall sentence greater than that originally imposed.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the combined sentence of 30 months' imprisonment imposed for the two breaches of the CBO was manifestly excessive.
2. Whether the judge had insufficient regard to the principle of totality when imposing the overall sentence.
3. Whether the judge erred in categorising the two theft offences (including the correct application of the Sentencing Guidelines for theft from a store and the effect of the existing banning/CBO on culpability and harm).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (as advanced by Attorney Robinson)

• The sentencing judge applied the wrong Sentencing Guidelines to the theft offences (appearing to use guidelines not specific to theft from a store), resulting in an incorrect categorisation (the judge treated the thefts as category B3 when they should have been in culpability category A given the existing banning order/CBO).
• The judge was wrong to categorise the harm for the breach offences at the highest level (harm category 1) because, the Appellant argued, the breaches did not pose a risk of serious criminal behaviour — at most the risk was further shoplifting.
• The judge erred by imposing consecutive sentences for the two breach offences; the Appellant contended that the breaches should be treated together and sentences for them should run concurrently to avoid double counting and to reflect the persistent nature of the breaches.
• The Appellant accepted entitlement to a one‑third discount for early guilty pleas; asked the court to apply the correct guidelines and principles of totality.

Prosecution's Submissions / Respondent

• The opinion records that the prosecution submissions at the sentencing hearing were of little assistance to the judge, particularly regarding the Sentencing Guidelines and the principle of totality. The appellate court criticised the quality of those submissions.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The appellate court undertook a multi‑stage analysis, confined to the information in the opinion and the applicable Sentencing Guidelines as applied in the opinion itself. The steps were:

1. Assessment of the sentencing hearing procedure and demeanor: The court found the sentencing hearing procedurally flawed. The sentencing judge (Judge Griffiths) began with confusion about his notes, continued despite apparent loss of his starting notes, and made unclear mathematical calculations when passing sentence. The Appellant interrupted repeatedly and Attorney Robinson did not effectively control him. The judge made inappropriate and exasperated remarks to the Appellant. For these reasons the court considered the entire exercise fundamentally flawed and in need of correction by the appellate court.
2. Re‑categorisation of the theft offences: The appellate court concluded that the judge had categorised the theft offences incorrectly (the judge treated them as category B3). The appellate court accepted the Appellant's submission (through Attorney Robinson) that the judge had used the wrong guideline. Correctly applying the theft‑from‑store guideline, each theft fell into culpability category A (because the Appellant was subject to a broad banning order/CBO imposed for repeated thefts from multiple stores). In terms of harm: the first theft (Company A, value £900) sat at the top of category 2 and, given the Appellant's record, could be raised to harm category 1; the second theft (Company B, value £2,000) was clearly within harm category 1.
3. Appropriate sentencing levels for the thefts: For category A1 thefts the guidelines provided a starting point of 26 weeks with a range up to 3 years. The appellate court considered that, before plea discount, each theft would have attracted a term of 30 months (2½ years). However, because both thefts were of a very similar kind, those sentences should run concurrently. Applying the undisputed one‑third discount for the guilty plea reduced the 30‑month term to 20 months on each theft count (concurrent).
4. Categorisation and sentence for the CBO breaches: The appellate court agreed with part of the judge's categorisation that the breaches were in culpability category A (persistent breaches) and harm category 1 (demonstrating continuing risk and causing significant harm to West End retailers). However, the court agreed with Attorney Robinson that imposing two consecutive terms for the two breach offences risked double counting. The correct approach, reflecting the persistent but overlapping nature of these breaches, was to impose concurrent sentences for the breaches rather than consecutive ones.
5. Appropriate sentencing levels for the breaches and totality: Under the guidelines an A1 breach has a starting point of two years' imprisonment; the court considered a somewhat longer term would be appropriate given the background, but held that the two breach sentences should be concurrent with one another and consecutive to the theft sentence. The court calculated that an appropriate additional term for each breach would be 18 months concurrent, then applied the one‑third discount for the plea, reducing the breach sentence to 12 months (concurrent with the other breach sentence) but consecutive to the 20‑month theft term. The court emphasized the need to respect totality in the overall sentence.
6. Other sentences: The 3‑month sentence for heroin possession remained concurrent. The 2‑month term from the previously suspended sentence was to be added to the aggregate custody term.
7. Aggregate calculation and limitation on appellate re‑sentencing: Adding the 20 months (theft concurrent) + 12 months (breaches concurrent but consecutive to thefts) + 2 months (suspended sentence) produced a total of 34 months' custody. The appellate court noted that its power to increase the overall sentence was constrained by the rule that it could not impose an overall sentence greater than the original 42 months; here the court reduced the aggregate to 34 months.

Holding and Implications

The appellate court allowed the appeal in part: the original overall sentence of 42 months' imprisonment was quashed and replaced with an overall term of 34 months' imprisonment.

More precisely, the court:

• Quashed the two consecutive 5‑month sentences imposed for the theft counts and replaced them with a sentence of 20 months on each theft count, to run concurrently with one another.
• Quashed the two consecutive 15‑month sentences imposed for the two breach counts and replaced them with sentences of 12 months on each breach count, to run concurrently with one another but consecutive to the 20 months for the thefts.
• Left the 3‑month concurrent sentence for heroin possession unaltered.
• Added the 2‑month term from the previously suspended sentence, producing a total custody term of 34 months.

Implications:

• The direct effect is that the Appellant's overall custodial sentence is reduced from 42 months to 34 months, reflecting corrected categorisation under the applicable Sentencing Guidelines and a re‑assessment of totality.
• The opinion does not purport to establish any new legal precedent; it applies Sentencing Guidelines to the specific facts and corrects procedural and categorisation errors in the sentencing exercise below.

Note on anonymisation: All personal names and specific localities in the source opinion have been replaced with consistent generic placeholders (e.g., "Appellant", "Attorney Robinson", "Judge Griffiths", "Company A", "Company B", "The Court", "The City") in order to comply with the anonymisation requirement. No substantive content has been invented or inferred beyond what is stated in the provided opinion.